This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: RFC: Remove sec->name and bfd_section_name
"H. J. Lu" <hjl@lucon.org> writes:
> > > Their usages are very inconsistent. I am planning to rename
> > >
> > > #define bfd_section_name(bfd, ptr) ((ptr)->name)
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > #define bfd_section_ident(bfd, ptr) ((ptr)->name)
> >
> > I don't think that is a good idea. If we want to fix the issue of
> > diagnostics, let's fix it. Let's not put in a confusing temporary
> > patch.
>
> bfd_section_ident is intended for diagnostics.
I can't tell whether you read what I wrote. Let me quote myself from
six lines up: "If we want to fix the issue of diagnostics, let's fix
it. Let's not put in a confusing temporary patch."
> > > and add
> > >
> > > #define bfd_set_section_name(bfd, ptr, name) ((ptr)->name = (name), TRUE)
> >
> > That seems reasonable.
>
> How about changing sec->name to bfd_get_section_name (bfd, sec)?
I think that would be a good idea.
Ian